CASE: Criminal Appeal No.1209 Of 2021: Prem Shankar Prasad Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. Judgment Date: 21.10.2021
COURT: Supreme Court of India
Relevant Extracts:
Despite the above observations on merits and despite the fact that it was brought to the notice of the High Court that respondent No.2 -accused is absconding and even the proceedings under sections 8283 of Cr.PC have been initiated as far as back on 10.01.2019, the High Court has just ignored the aforesaid relevant aspects and has granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 – accused by observing that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction. The specific allegations of cheating, etc., which came to be considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all been considered by the High Court. Even the High Court has just ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings under sections 8283 of Cr.PC by simply observing that “be that as it may”. The aforesaid relevant aspect on grant of anticipatory bail ought no to have been ignored by the High Court and ought to have been considered by the High Court very seriously and not casually.
In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma n (2014) 2 SCC 171, it is observed and held by this court that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of
section 82 of Cr.PC, he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.
The above provision makes it clear that the power exercisable under Section 438 of the Code is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty.
It is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
Even the observations made by the High Court while granting the anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 – accused that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction and therefore the accused is entitled to the anticipatory bail is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. Even in the case of a business transaction also there may be offences under the IPC more particularly sections 406, 420, 467, 468, etc. What is required to be considered is the nature of allegation and the accusation and not that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction.